House of Commons Hansard #121 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-35.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I spoke yesterday with at least two opposition parties and did offer such a take note debate. Unfortunately, it was not accepted by the opposition.
Nuclear Fuel Waste ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Here we go continuing a debate. Is it agreed that we call it 5.30?
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have two hours that the government appears to want to just write off because it does not have more business, but there are some very pressing and even critical issues in this country. One, in particular, is the very disastrous pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia that is devastating our forests.
I would like to suggest that we call an emergency debate on the pine beetle disaster that is devastating our forests and putting tens of thousands of forestry workers out of work.
I would like to seek unanimous consent--
Nuclear Fuel Waste ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
We appear to be getting into a debate. Is there unanimous consent for the proposition of the hon. member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley?
Nuclear Fuel Waste ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
I would suggest we suspend the House until 5.30 when the bells will sound to call in the members.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.35 p.m.)
The House resumed at 5.30 p.m.
The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion.
Strychnine SolutionsPrivate Members' Business
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington Ontario
Liberal
Larry McCormick LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this debate which is very important for our producers in western Canada.
During two previous debates, on September 19 and October 22 respectively, the government fully described, for the information of the hon. member for Lakeland and all members of the House, how and, more important, why a decision was made concerning the availability of liquid strychnine concentrate for use in the formulation of strychnine baits on farms.
I will describe, step by step, the actions that the government has taken to investigate and find solutions to the problems that farmers have been experiencing with the ready to use formulation of strychnine.
However, first I must reply to the hon. member's allegations that we are hiding information about this decision. He stated in the October 22 debate that there has to be more and that he had not received all the goods.
We have fully disclosed all information regarding the decision taken by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on strychnine in 1992. There is nothing to hide, no secret studies and no undisclosed data. We are working together with the provinces and with the partners to resolve this major challenge for our farmers and for our ranchers.
As was explained during the last debate on strychnine, it was impossible to have predicted the poor performance of the ready to use strychnine baits prior to the restrictions put in place in 1992.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada took very reasonable action to protect the health and safety of all Canadians. That decision was made with every expectation that safer, ready to use baits available to farmers would prove as effective as the baits prepared by the farmers from liquid strychnine to control the gopher pest. The concentration of the baits was the same in both cases.
The reason action had to be taken to restrict the availability of liquid strychnine was that it was implicated in the intentional and unintentional poisonings of non-target animals, including dogs and wildlife. There were also some suspected human suicides linked to this.
The decision on strychnine was not taken lightly. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada recognized that these changes would involve some minor increased costs to users who previously used their own grain for bait, but would now have to purchase pre-packaged grain treated with strychnine.
Prior to the withdrawal, a two year consultation was carried out with those provinces where strychnine products were largely used, that is, in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This consultation involved the western forum and the then Canadian Association of Pest Control Officials.
However, let me emphasize that no formal economic impact studies were done because it was reasonable to expect that the bait products remaining on the market, which contained the same or higher concentrations of strychnine, would control gophers in the same way that baits prepared by the farmer from the liquid strychnine concentrate had. The problems with the ready to use bait came to light only after several years of use.
Again, let me underline the fact that strychnine has a very high acute toxicity and it acts quickly on the central nervous system causing frequent violent convulsions which eventually lead to death through respiratory failure. There is no effective antidote available for poisoning from strychnine. The safety implications of allowing access to this type of product in Canada cannot be ignored.
In Alberta, the number of accidental strychnine poisoning has been steadily declining over the past seven years. According to the provincial agri-food surveillance systems lab in Edmonton, there are now 10 to 15 cases a year. In Saskatchewan 20 to 25 strychnine dog poisonings and the occasional strychnine wildlife poisoning are confirmed each year, according to the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan.
I want to point out that poisoning wildlife and domestic animals using bait laced with strychnine is illegal, not only under the Pest Control Products Act but also under the cruelty to animals section of the criminal code, as well as provincial wildlife acts.
Canada is not alone in having taken action on strychnine. All above ground uses have been prohibited in the United States since 1988. It is illegal to use strychnine for pest control in most European countries and its use is prohibited by the Berne convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats.
In its initial response to growers' concerns about ineffective strychnine baits, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, made an extensive analysis of the ready to use products currently being marketed to find out whether they met the level of strychnine guaranteed, that is, 0.4% strychnine. This is the concentration that has been shown to provide an acceptable level of control.
This analysis confirmed that the concentration of strychnine present in the ready to use baits is the same or even slightly greater than that found previously in baits prepared by mixing the concentrated liquid strychnine product with farm available grain. It was then necessary to look for other explanations for the poor performance of these products, such as baiting procedures, environmental conditions affecting the bait and the fact that some of the gophers just did not like the bait.
To investigate these possibilities, the following actions have been taken: The PMRA upgraded the labels of all registered strychnine products to provide clearer instruction on the need to carefully locate and time bait placements to ensure optimum performance. These use instructions were developed in consultation with the provinces.
From 1998 to 1999, registrants were required to submit quality control results on several batches of their product to the PMRA for review prior to their product being distributed into the marketplace for the upcoming use season.
In 1998-99 the province of Alberta and the Alberta Cattle Commission each carried out efficiency studies designed to explore the relative attractiveness of various carrier baits. Based on the findings of these studies, which showed some indication that canary seed was preferred to other bait, in 2000 the PMRA granted a research permit to Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to conduct further field trials on strychnine treated canary seed bait. The results of the trials done in 2000 showed that bait freshness and the type of bait seemed to be important considerations in achieving good bait uptake and successful gopher control.
In 2001 the PMRA granted another research permit to AAFRD to conduct additional field trials to compare the effectiveness of commercially available, ready to use 0.4% strychnine bait to freshly prepared 0.4% strychnine bait, the same product. The results of these trials again showed that bait freshness appeared to be very important.
In July 2000, staff from the PMRA visited sites in Alberta to better understand the nature of the gopher problem and have discussions on improving control measures. To further the state of knowledge on alternatives to strychnine, the PMRA is in contact with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a number of northern U.S. states to discuss the problem of gophers in various regions, as well as the available control methods.
The U.S. uses anti-coagulant baits for gopher control and they appear to be effective. Let me stress that these anti-coagulants control products are also registered for gopher control in Canada, along with others such as zinc phosphide and sulphur gas based products.
Unfortunately, strychnine seems to be preferred by growers here. The alternative products may appear to be more inconvenient and labour intensive to apply than strychnine products but the PMRA believes that further study needs to be done to see if their use could be enhanced.
In recognition of the serious nature of the gopher control problem in western Canada, the PMRA also granted emergency registrations this summer in Saskatchewan and Alberta. In this highly restricted access program, premixed fresh bait product at 0.4% was made available to growers under the supervision of provincial officials.
On November 16 the PMRA met with Alberta and Saskatchewan pesticide regulatory officials to review the further results of research and to assess this summer's emergency registration program.
Officials will discuss whether the access program was effective and whether it provided reasonable availability while mitigating any possible adverse effects of allowing liquid strychnine concentrate to be used to make fresh bait. Another topic to be discussed at this meeting will be the use of currently registered alternative products to strychnine.
To sum up, members should be assured that the concerns of farmers regarding strychnine have been listened to. There is nothing being hidden from hon. members. They have indeed received all the goods and progress is being made to find a resolution to this very serious and complex problem.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight debating Motion No. P-3 in regard to the production of papers requested by the hon. member for Lakeland. He had requested that the Minister of Health produce papers with regard to the use of 2% and 5% solutions of strychnine and the studies on their effect on the income of Canadian farmers.
The reply came back from the minister that no studies were done on the economic impact on Canadian farmers of the withdrawal of the registration of the concentrated strychnine solutions used by farmers to mix their own 4% end use product. We heard the parliamentary secretary talk about how the government was studying the issue and doing research projects.
However the problem remains massive. All the studies in the world at the rate they are being done will not solve the issue for prairie farmers and ranchers.
The member for Lakeland is doing an excellent job in bringing the issues of predator and pest control before the House for debate. Pests and predators are those animals and plants that hinder the production of the very food supply we eat such as grains and meat supplies.
Gophers are pests that cause a lot of damage to fields by making mounds where they dig holes and eat plants. That is what we are debating. The issue is something I grew up with.
My granddad came to Saskatchewan in 1902 from Iowa, Eric Hilstrom and his wife Elsie started the family ranch and homesteaded before Saskatchewan was even a province. There were some gophers around at that time but not to the extent we see now. Agriculture practices facilitated the vast expansion of the gopher population throughout the prairies.
My brother Donald and his wife Gail still operate the family ranch. My other brother Mervin and his wife Isla have a grain operation. I am there every summer. I see the problems they still have with gophers and the issue of the federal government not making products available to the farmers who could control the gopher problem.
As a child growing up, besides hunting gophers which every prairie farmer's son did from time to time, maybe once a summer for a couple of days, we would help a farmer whose field was massively destroyed by gophers. He would put the strychnine product out and kill the gophers off in a couple of days. Then there would be no more strychnine around and as a result there were very limited auxiliary deaths of other animals and birds.
The product was used because it was effective. The member for Lakeland is trying to keep agriculture viable and not have a farmer's bottom line ruined by a pest that should be controlled. No one is asking that gophers be wiped out. Certainly the mascot for the Regina Roughriders should never be touched in this regard.
The issue of the PMRA was raised by the parliamentary secretary. What a mess. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency under the health minister is horrible. It does not have the ability to make decisions. For example, veterinarians bring forward new products to be used for cats and dogs such as antibiotics and other things that need to be passed through the health minister to get approval and be registered. I met with them just this week. They told me that it takes four years from the time they notify the health department for it to say it will look at the product.
Once it starts to do research on it, it takes another four years for it to finish up. It said that our regulatory system of licensing new products is in such a shambles that it is impossible to get a decision out of it. In Manitoba we have a related problem to the PMRA and that is the use of cyanide as a predator control.
We have a massive problem in southern Manitoba with wolves attacking and killing our cattle and ranch animals. For example, Stephen Cook is a rancher from the Steep Rock area who had 85 heifers in a half section pasture. The wolves came in one night in the fall after the lake had frozen over and harassed and killed some animals right on the spot. These were 700 pound to 800 pound heifers. The wolves then drove about 80 on to the ice on the lake. When they got them about four or five miles from shore, the ice was so thin the animals broke through and 25 to 30 of them drowned. After that the rancher had to round up the rest of the animals. Predator control is a massive problem.
I referred to the Cook ranch and the Reykdal ranch along Lake Manitoba. All that is needed is reintroduction of the use of a cyanide gun for predator control. The Manitoba Cattle Producers Association identified as one of its resolutions that it would lobby both provincial and federal governments to have that brought back. Conservation officers do not want to go against their employers, but they say that is the only predator control which works. It is much like the strychnine and gopher issue that the member for Lakeland has brought forth.
I wrote a letter to Oscar Lathlin, the minister responsible for conservation in the province of Manitoba, asking him why we could not have cyanide for the use of controlling wolf populations. Again, it is only used when a problem arises such as the killing of livestock at a given time. The killing may only happen for a week. If we can control it right away and kill off one or two of the wolves, it would be finished. However if we do not take some action and eliminate a couple of wolves out of the killer pack, we end up having them kill for maybe a month or two before they finally move on through their own natural volition.
The minister in Manitoba wrote back to me on July 20, 2000, and said that the existing permit was apparently cancelled because documents forwarded to the federal government were misplaced.
I come back to talking about a health minister who made a series of mistakes and mix-ups, which I guess I should not go into right now, which cost Canadians a massive amount of money. This includes ramming the old gun bill down on us in the west, in the east and in central Canada, which we all resent.
Oscar Lathlin said the federal government misplaced these documents. He alleged that a renewal of the permit was being considered as part of the department's review of all predator control initiatives currently under way. He added that the review would provide recommendations for future programs.
The problem is that the NDP minister and the Liberal government are still wondering what to do while ranchers, farmers, conservation and police officers, and people of average common sense are telling them to bring back the use of cyanide for predator control. It would not be used by individual farmers but by professional conservation officers who are used to dealing with predator control problems.
I have identified the problems. Inevitably, like many other situations in the country, the problem rests right over on that side of the House. It especially rests with the health minister. I will not go into his whole sorry history as a member of the House, but in my opinion we need a new health minister to get on with the corrections that are required in the pest management review agency.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is again an honour to stand in the House and debate issues that are of concern to the people of Crowfoot, to western Canada and I am sure to all Canada.
The picture is a serene one. The picture is one of a lake, the sun setting and the call of the loon whistling out over the twilight and through the calm of the day at the close of sunset. It is the song of peace and happiness as well as of western Canada and Alberta.
The song of the loon is not the song that has the people of Crowfoot worried. The song that has the people of Crowfoot worried is the little squeak of a gopher or Richardson's ground squirrel. It is a beautiful little tune, is it not? For some that little tune is not one of beauty but of horror with increased frequency. In fact not only is it sung by the gophers, but by hundreds of farmers who sit in their trucks trying to whistle a gopher up a hole so they can rid the world of one of the worst pests the agricultural sector of western Canada has.
For me to stand in the House and try to create a picture of the threat of the Richardson's ground squirrel or the gopher on farming communities would not bring justice to it. I would not do a good job.
This past year was my first year as a member of parliament. I live and work as a farmer and have cattle on my little ranch. I have spent a lot of my time in Ottawa and throughout my constituency. I have not obviously spent the time on my farm that I would have liked. One of the very first things I realized when I went home in the spring was that we had a huge gopher problem. This is not something new. It has been around for a long time. We know the damage the Richardson's ground squirrel or the gopher can do on an agricultural operation.
In the fall or spring when we walk out on our farms and see the huge patches of crop or pasture that have been eaten down and destroyed, we realize that we have a problem. This is not a problem of little animals. It is a problem of economy. This a problem of the bottom line, margins and trying to make it. When we see literally hundreds and hundreds of gophers in a very small pasture, we recognize we have a problem.
Why do I say hundreds and hundreds? When a person buys a box of 22 gauge shells there are 50 in a box. When that person puts four or five boxes in the ashtray of his or her pick-up truck, continuously loads the rifle and runs out of shells after having shot 100 gophers, that person realizes there are probably three or four times that many that are never seen. It is a huge problem.
I thank the member for Lakeland for being so adamant in bringing this bill to the House. I went around my constituency calling on many municipal governments. As a new member, I wondered what the concerns would be of municipal governments or counties like Provost or Flagstaff or many of the special areas in my riding. It was not going to be housing so much. A lot of it was the family farm and agricultural concerns. When I visited those municipal counties, offices and governments, by far the largest issue brought forward was the problem with gophers and the fact that the strychnine poison, or gopher poison as we call it, had been taken off the market.
There was a recess in the debate on the bill. The government eventually came forward with strychnine last year but it was a little too late. Although there was some definite advantage to having it, the farming community needed the strychnine poison at the right time, which was when gophers were breeding and the young were being raised. This was the concern that my constituents and councillors in many different counties brought forward.
We stand in the House many times and we talk about bills. We bring forward evidence that we use to build a debate. We use evidence to bring forward our arguments.
When we go to Motion No. P-3 and the decision of the government to remove the 5% strychnine from shelves across western Canada, we look for evidence. We ask the government, why would it remove poison that the farmers and those involved in agriculture depend on? We would say, show us the science.
The member for Lakeland has continually brought this problem to the House. I asked him to please show me the science and the reason that the government gives for pulling the use of strychnine. The concern the hon. member brought forward was that there just is no evidence. Science has not proven that there is any huge risk to the environment, but the government pulled it regardless. This huge decision was made but no evidence was brought forward.
We look at issues. We look at bills. We look at legislation that hurts. There are many different pieces of legislation the government has brought forward. I will go back to Bill C-68. I do not believe there has ever been a bill that has divided urban and rural like Bill C-68 has. It has hurt the farmer, the rancher in central Alberta and all across Canada. It has hurt them. Bill C-68 has given the farmers and ranchers the feeling that the government believes they are the criminals in waiting, so to speak.
The government said Bill C-68 was going to cost $85 million. It has ended up costing $685 million. My constituents ask why does the government not care? Why does the government not care about what is happening out west?
Now there is Bill C-15B regarding cruelty to animals. Bill C-15B will put at risk my constituents, the farmers, the ranchers, the individuals who raise cattle and hogs and the individuals who make a livelihood from that. Different individuals have come forward as witnesses and said that the bill will allow prosecutions to come against the agricultural sector. It is another knock, another hit, another concern that our farmers have.
I applaud the government for listening. I believe it will make amendments because I cannot believe for one moment that the government would allow the bill to pass as it is. Even the Liberal government must understand that it is absolutely saying goodbye to the west and a lot of the industries: the cattle industry, the chicken and poultry industry. It is causing much concern there. I believe the government will make amendments that will to some degree satisfy my party. I hope the government will accept our amendments.
There is no reason that the government should not be able to say that we will bring back the strychnine poisoning that would help the farmers and ranchers in dealing with one of the big threats to their crops and their economy. It would be a gesture of goodwill and good faith. I hope the government will move in that way.
I remember one day in my previous life my brother and I had to treat a sick calf. We did not think the calf could react quickly and we had to employ the rope horses that we have on the farm. Both of us went out through the pasture and began to look for the calf which had taken off into the trees. All of a sudden in a flash out came the calf. My brother spun his rope horse around and took off after the calf. He brought the rope out and all of a sudden down went the horse. Luckily I was there. My brother was not hurt, but the horse was hurt. The horse did not break a leg, but the horse was hurt. Why was the horse hurt? Because he had stepped in a badger hole.
As we watch the gopher population rise, the unfortunate thing in the part of the world where I come from is that the badger moves in and digs holes that cannot be seen by cattle and horses which step in them. For the Liberals sitting across the way, in the space from in front of the Clerk's table to that desk in the aisle for example, there could be 30 or 40 gopher holes. We are not talking about a small number.
This is a concern for the people of Crowfoot. I am out of time, so I thank the member for Lakeland for the opportunity to speak to this issue. I ask the government to please bring back the strychnine so that we can rid our farms and ranches of a huge problem.
Strychnine SolutionsPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
Order, please. Under the standing orders of the House there is now an opportunity for a minister of the crown to reply for five minutes.
None rising, I then call on the hon. member for Lakeland for his five minute right of reply.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to wrap up debate on production of papers P-3. The issue is about farmers being denied the ability to make the kind of living we would expect them to make for producing the food we eat. What is more fundamentally important than the food we eat?
The issue I am talking about and which my colleagues have so ably presented today demonstrates that the actions of the current government and lack of thought on the part of the government before it have denied farmers an extremely important tool. The loss of this tool has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars they can ill afford to lose. I am referring to the 2% and 5% concentrations of strychnine used by farmers to control Richardson's ground squirrels which are commonly referred to as gophers. The solution is effective and safe when mixed with grain the farmers themselves produce. That is what the issue is about.
In this production of papers I ask the government to produce studies, which it would have done before removing the product from the market, to demonstrate the kinds of losses farmers might face due to the loss of this important tool.
The parliamentary secretary stood again today and said the government was not trying to hide anything and had disclosed everything. That is what concerns me. This demonstrates clearly that it has removed an important tool from the hands of farmers with little thought.
I have seen the evidence if the government is hiding nothing. It is shocking how few people were involved in the process. The parliamentary secretary said there were consultations across the west. Farmers sure as heck were not involved in those consultations. There were very few people involved, period. It was not an acceptable process. It is shameful that the government took the action it did and removed the product from the market based on the bit of so-called study it did.
Some environmentalists came up with an idea. I am not saying environmentalists in a negative way because a lot of environmentalists do excellent work, but the environmentalists who took the issue to the government made a huge mistake. They did not think it through. That is what I am concerned about. The government acted on this with little thought.
I do not have a lot of time today so I will talk about is what the issue is really about. It is about the removal of the 2% and 5% solutions of strychnine which are effective in the control of gophers. This has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars over the nine years since the product was removed from the market. I want to make that clear. If something is not done it will continue to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The problem is so critical that last year in Alberta there was an emergency reinstatement of a temporary permit to use the product. There was an emergency reinstatement of a permit to use the product because farmers so desperately needed it. It became clear even to the government that it should reinstate the product on at least a one year emergency basis.
I have been dealing with the issue through private members' bills, private members' motions and now this production of papers. I have been dealing with it every way I could think of over the past nine years. Unfortunately it has not worked to date.
As a result of the emergency reinstatement last year and the clear benefits of it I hope we will see the permanent reinstatement of the ability of farmers to use the 2% or 5% strychnine solution, mix it with their grain and effectively control the gophers that cost them so much money.
Gophers cause pain and suffering to livestock such as cattle and horses, as my colleagues have pointed out. They cause serious injuries to people riding horses and working cattle as a result of the holes which break the legs of horses and cattle.
What I am asking for here today, and I want there to be no doubt about it, is for the government to reinstate the 2% and 5% solutions of strychnine immediately so that in March and April this year when the gophers start to show themselves farmers can use the product to effectively control them.
Strychnine SolutionsPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
The time provided for the debate on this matter has expired. Pursuant to order made earlier this day, all questions necessary to dispose of Motion No. P-3 are deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, December 4, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
It being 6.07 p.m.--
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are saying it is 6.07 p.m. which is not 6.30 p.m. We have given all this time to members of the opposition. Am I to conclude they ran out of things to do and that is why we are adjourning?
I am a little unsure of what is occurring. I am sure all hon. members want to know precisely why we have nothing to do, as it were. This is something that interests a number of people.
Strychnine SolutionsPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
I think the Chair will be able to deal with this in a moment because I believe there is an answer.
The rules relating to debate on notices of motions for the production of papers are ones with which I have to admit the Chair is not entirely familiar. However I am advised and had been advised before I came into the chair this evening that there were 30 minutes of debate remaining on this item and then two 5 minute responses would be available, one to a minister responsible and there was no minister who wished to speak. Then five minutes would be available to the mover as a right of reply.
Those two opportunities were extended. We did the 30 minutes of debate. There was no minister who wished to speak. The member took his 5 minutes to reply and the question was deemed put and deferred. That is why we are finished.
It being 6.09 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.)